I thought the part where he talked about where our rights come was interesting. Note that he didn't say that they come from the Constitution or The Bill of Rights! In another thread I posted that our rights come from GOD, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and I got blasted. Judge Napolitano talks about "Natural Law".

In the Number One Skier Dad thread someone said, "He has the right courtesy of the Bill of Rights and because he obeyed the law."

I would just like to point out that this is not the case and that our rights do not come from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

27:26
The Government exists for only one reason and that is to preserve our freedom and everything else the government does is illegitimate immoral and not authorized by the constitution.

The problem is that this statement isn't true by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote:

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and I got blasted.

But this is just an abstraction of a moral code. It isn't a literal statement of our Creator actually providing us with something. You probably got blasted because you were trying to make an irrelavant point by injecting God into the discussion. History has pretty much demostrated that our Creator has never giving us any rights, other than the rights provided by a strong census of the masses. It has always been shown that "might makes right".

The problem is that this statement isn't true by any stretch of the imagination.

But this is just an abstraction of a moral code. It isn't a literal statement of our Creator actually providing us with something. You probably got blasted because you were trying to make an irrelavant point by injecting God into the discussion. History has pretty much demostrated that our Creator has never giving us any rights, other than the rights provided by a strong census of the masses. It has always been shown that "might makes right".

No John, I was blasted because someone thought I was trying interject God in to the discussion. The mere mention of the word God to some people makes them freak out.

Also, are you saying that the very ideals that the country was founded on are false? Or are you saying that the country was not founded on these ideals at all? Where do you think our rights come from?

The problem is that this statement isn't true by any stretch of the imagination.

But this is just an abstraction of a moral code. It isn't a literal statement of our Creator actually providing us with something. You probably got blasted because you were trying to make an irrelavant point by injecting God into the discussion. History has pretty much demostrated that our Creator has never giving us any rights, other than the rights provided by a strong census of the masses. It has always been shown that "might makes right".

I just wanted to verify your answer. With your answer in mind, do you think the United States Government is based on "a strong census of the masses"? Is this your definition of a Democracy, and is the US a Democracy?

"It has always been shown that "might makes right"; so do you think the US is built on that idea?

Wake77,
"What a load of sheet. If I am not mistaken, McVeigh subscribed to that same sort of reasoning."

I just wanted to verify your answer. With your answer in mind, do you think the United States Government is based on "a strong census of the masses"? Is this your definition of a Democracy, and is the US a Democracy?

"a strong census of the masses" is a statement as to the origins of moral code. And I do think that the US govt is based on a moral code. The reference to inalienable rights is analogous to certain moral codes that are common among all people. Who here doesn't think that allowing all people to enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is morally correct?

I guess what you want to hear is that the US is a Republic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram

"It has always been shown that "might makes right"; so do you think the US is built on that idea?

It's a fundamental law of nature. I don't think that the US is built on that idea. However the US is not exempt from this law.

I think preserving our freedoms is a responsibility of our government, but to say "everything else the government does is illegitimate immoral and not authorized by the constitution" is absurd.

I have a question. If "our rights come from GOD", does this mean that people that do not believe in GOD (or believe in a non-Christian GOD) have no rights? It sounds like a paradox.

No! The founding fathers actually argued about this, and that is why it ended up as the First Amendment. The Federalist Papers also cover this. Also, you might find it interesting that the original Declaration of Independence did not include the word Creator in it at all. The original version by Thomas Jefferson said,

"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness;"

John Adam's version said,

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness;"

it was later changed to,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;"

in the official version and no one can explain how, why, or who the change was done.

Based on what I have been told and my opinion in general I don't think any of the founding fathers meant any specific God, but one in general. If you read the Federalist Papers they mention Natural Law. The Judge in the above video does the same.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;"

If all men are created equal, why did they have slaves during the Colonial days? If all men are "endowed certain unalienable Rights", why did the "Trail of Tears" happen?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;"

If all men are created equal, why did they have slaves during the Colonial days? If all men are "endowed certain unalienable Rights", why did the "Trail of Tears" happen?

To answer the first part of your question, why did they have slaves during Colonial Days, many of them did not have slaves and spent much of their time and money to abolish the practice. In simple terms the practice of slavery was a heated topic during the founding of our nation and was the topic of much debate and action. It was ultimately decided, that in order to get something done in the way of forming our nation a compromise among the founders had to be made to get everyone to the table and then ultimately to get everyone to agree in the founding of the nation. The part that many people conveniently forget about when bringing this topic up is that the founding fathers, at least some of them, saw the problems with slavery and made sure that the Constitution included methods to correct the wrongs that they knew they were including. Why do you think the Three-fifths Compromise and discussion took place??

To answer the second part of your question, why did the Trail of Tears happen, according to my reading, which up to this point has been little, was very similar to the slavery debate. The opinions were divided and as a result of the division a compromise was made. Similar to what is happening today, some of the leaders at the time had personal beliefs that they placed in front of those of the individual (individual as largest minority, which the US was founded on protecting). Many of the founding fathers would not participate in the removal indians from the South. I have read the memoirs of Andrew Jackson that was published and he believed that removal was indeed the only policy available if the Indians were to be protected from certain annihilation.

A pure Democracy is nothing more than mob ruleŁ with no provisions for the rights of the individual. The Founding Fathers saw this as one of the worst forms of government and in their wisdom provided a framework to secure the rights of the individual.

BTW, I don't claim to be an expert in this topic, but merely wish stimulate the discussion and overall topic based upon what I have been taught, read, and believe. Maybe I am

I would argue that our form of government is a "Democratic Republic". One only has to look at the events that transpired in NYC recently with the proposed Muslim community center. The overwhelming "majority" did not want the center built, which contradicts the "Republic" idea of protecting the minority, and many political leaders joined on the side of opposition, and that by no means, was a rare occurrence. Our elected officials are less-inclined to please the majority of constituents and more inclined to serve the needs of the people with the "means" to get them reelected.

I would argue that our form of government is a "Democratic Republic". One only has to look at the events that transpired in NYC recently with the proposed Muslim community center. The overwhelming "majority" did not want the center built, which contradicts the "Republic" idea of protecting the minority, and many political leaders joined on the side of opposition, and that by no means, was a rare occurrence. Our elected officials are less-inclined to please the majority of constituents and more inclined to serve the needs of the people with the "means" to get them reelected.

"It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators."

Maybe this is cause of the current state of the union. I think that many politicians probably know less about this topic than we do.

You could argue it but I disagree. How is an individual often subjected to differential treatment? If I'm not subjected to differential treatment then does that mean I'm not a minority? Does being an individual mean that there will always be frequent differential treatment? I'd say yes. If so then the addition of "often subjected to differential treatment" becomes superfluous. That alone would indicate a flawed definition.

This is simply forcing logic into a dictionary definition to create a new, but unintended meaning. I doubt that dictionaries have such strict rules of definition as to stand the test of all possible logical deduction.

You could argue it but I disagree. How is an individual often subjected to differential treatment? If I'm not subjected to differential treatment then does that mean I'm not a minority? Does being an individual mean that there will always be frequent differential treatment? I'd say yes. If so then the addition of "often subjected to differential treatment" becomes superfluous. That alone would indicate a flawed definition.

This is simply forcing logic into a dictionary definition to create a new, but unintended meaning. I doubt that dictionaries have such strict rules of definition as to stand the test of all possible logical deduction.

For those that are interested, the idea comes from Ayn Rand. She said, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

Others, including me, have put the idea in the context of largest minority because the individual is both the largest and smallest minority by definition.

I think preserving our freedoms is a responsibility of our government, but to say "everything else the government does is illegitimate immoral and not authorized by the constitution" is absurd.

I have a question. If "our rights come from GOD", does this mean that people that do not believe in GOD (or believe in a non-Christian GOD) have no rights? It sounds like a paradox.

One of my professors gave this answer to your question and I thought I would share.

The secularists have attempted to separate "Natural Law" from the Law of God as revealed in the Bible. But they are the same! "Natural Law" is revealed by studying Creation (Laws of physics, mathematics, etc.); and by using the Laws of Logic, one arrives at the same moral laws and laws of polity as are revealed in the Bible. Thus, Ayn Rand, a secularist, arrived at basically the same moral laws as are revealed in the Bible. Cicero, a pagan, arrived at basically the same principles of civil government as are revealed in the Bible. READ the "5000 year Leap".

One of my favorite books is C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man". It's a short double spaced book - very profound - and Lewis proves the commonality of the "Natural Law" which was discovered by pagans, and the "Revealed Law" as taught in Scripture. Your life will never be the same if you read this book! It is profound, but there are study guides on line.

The problem is that this statement isn't true by any stretch of the imagination.

But this is just an abstraction of a moral code. It isn't a literal statement of our Creator actually providing us with something. You probably got blasted because you were trying to make an irrelavant point by injecting God into the discussion. History has pretty much demostrated that our Creator has never giving us any rights, other than the rights provided by a strong census of the masses. It has always been shown that "might makes right".